Why ... (2)

[Oncedeceived]

Of course you would. The unique features in that universe would require a very narrow range of constants, just like life in our universe.

You have nothing to support that claim. You would have no idea what another universe would or would not have.

You haven't presented anything to disagree with. Where is the evidence?

I have given the evidence to support my claims yet you deny it. IF you think that the evidence does not support the claim then present it.

Why did you say it was improbable if you can't produce the probabilities?

I don't have to that has been done for me. Since you are familiar with the LHC and I can assume you are not living in isolation somewhere you have heard of the discovery of the Higgs Boson. The fact that they found it provides evidence that the physical laws and contants are what they were calculated to be but the predictions of the Higgs were not realized. The Higgs is not natural. The improbability's proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Most particle physicists hoped that a more testable explanation for the cosmological constant problem would be found. None has. Now, physicists say, the unnaturalness of the Higgs makes the unnaturalness of the cosmological constant more significant. Arkani-Hamed thinks the issues may even be related. “We don’t have an understanding of a basic extraordinary fact about our universe,” he said. “It is big and has big things in it.”

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130524-is-nature-unnatural/

The Higgs is another element for support of my claims.

I really think that. Those are my words.

OK

 

[Loudmouth]

You have nothing to support that claim. You would have no idea what another universe would or would not have.

I am saying that IF they did have different constants, then they would have features that are unique to that universe. This would fit your requirements for a fine tuned universe in that the unique features of that universe are dependent on an extremely narrow range of constants.

What I am showing is that no matter what constants a universe has, as long as it sticks around it will fit your requirements for being fine tuned.

I have given the evidence to support my claims yet you deny it. IF you think that the evidence does not support the claim then present it.

Please point me to this evidence.

I don't have to that has been done for me. Since you are familiar with the LHC and I can assume you are not living in isolation somewhere you have heard of the discovery of the Higgs Boson. The fact that they found it provides evidence that the physical laws and contants are what they were calculated to be but the predictions of the Higgs were not realized. The Higgs is not natural. The improbability's proof is in the pudding so to speak.

How does that factor into the probability of our universe having the constants it has? You are simply pointing to the constants.

To use an analogy, I am asking what the probabilty of rolling a 7 in Craps is. You keep pointing to the dice and saying, "Look, the dice add up to 7". Yes, I know the dice add up to 7. I am asking what are the odds of a 7.

In the same way, I am asking what are the odds of our universe having the constants that it does. You keep pointing to the constants. It isn't answering my question.

Most particle physicists hoped that a more testable explanation for the cosmological constant problem would be found. None has. Now, physicists say, the unnaturalness of the Higgs makes the unnaturalness of the cosmological constant more significant. Arkani-Hamed thinks the issues may even be related. “We don’t have an understanding of a basic extraordinary fact about our universe,” he said. “It is big and has big things in it.”

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130524-is-nature-unnatural/

The Higgs is another element for support of my claims.

How is the Higgs unnatural, and how does it support your claims?

 

[Davian]

You have nothing to support that claim. You would have no idea what another universe would or would not have.


I have given the evidence to support my claims yet you deny it. IF you think that the evidence does not support the claim then present it.

I don't have to that has been done for me. Since you are familiar with the LHC and I can assume you are not living in isolation somewhere you have heard of the discovery of the Higgs Boson. The fact that they found it provides evidence that the physical laws and contants are what they were calculated to be but the predictions of the Higgs were not realized. The Higgs is not natural. The improbability's proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Most particle physicists hoped that a more testable explanation for the cosmological constant problem would be found. None has. Now, physicists say, the unnaturalness of the Higgs makes the unnaturalness of the cosmological constant more significant. Arkani-Hamed thinks the issues may even be related. “We don’t have an understanding of a basic extraordinary fact about our universe,” he said. “It is big and has big things in it.”

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130524-is-nature-unnatural/

The Higgs is another element for support of my claims.

Read the article. By "unnatural", they do not mean "supernatural", in the religious sense. They mean, to quote the intro to the article, "The universe might not make sense." And, the article says, at this time it is unfalsifiable.

So, no, it does not support your claims.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am saying that IF they did have different constants, then they would have features that are unique to that universe. This would fit your requirements for a fine tuned universe in that the unique features of that universe are dependent on an extremely narrow range of constants.

Ok, unless you can prove that another universe exists or trillions for that matter, you are going to have to settle your arguments on this universe. Anything other than ours is immaterial and irrelevant until which time there is evidence for it or them.

What I am showing is that no matter what constants a universe has, as long as it sticks around it will fit your requirements for being fine tuned.

There is no evidence of what a universe would have for any requirements mine or anything else. Stick to what is in evidence.

Please point me to this evidence.

Let me do this one more time. My claim is that there is evidence to support the universe was created/designed.

The universe appears to be designed.

Scientists that have the expertise and experience determined the universe appears to be designed.

The creation narrative claims that the Christian God created and designed the universe.

If the universe was created and designed by the Christian God it would reflect that in its appearance.

The universe reflects design in its appearance thus we can conclude that the universe was created and designed by the Christian God.

The nature of the universe is based on laws that govern it.

Those laws include at least 26 laws that are constant and can be measured accurately.

The laws of Physics require fine tuning in such a way to produce the ability to for life.

There are no known laws of physics that can explain the fine tuning of the universe.

If the Christian God designed the universe it would be designed in such a way to assure life and reflect His intelligence.

The universe is comprehensible and mathematical in nature.

Intelligence is comprehensible and mathematical. Intelligence comes from intelligence.

Intelligence and comprehension are reflected in the universe and human beings.

The overall sum of factors in the universe support the creation of the universe by the Christian God.

In the same way, I am asking what are the odds of our universe having the constants that it does. You keep pointing to the constants. It isn't answering my question.

The odds are so low scientist now are considering that the universe is not due to a natural process, and either must be explained by multiverse theory or some unknown law of everything that pulls it back into the natural.

How is the Higgs unnatural, and how does it support your claims?

It supports my claim that the universe is not a product of natural processes but is instead the creation of the Christian God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Read the article. By "unnatural", they do not mean "supernatural", in the religious sense. They mean, to quote the intro to the article, "The universe might not make sense." And, the article says, at this time it is unfalsifiable.

So, no, it does not support your claims.

lol Did you think that I would think that they would say that it supported a religious view of the universe? That wasn't may claim.

Yes it does support my claims.

 

[Davian]

lol Did you think that I would think that they would say that it supported a religious view of the universe? That wasn't may claim.

Yes it does support my claims.

Seriously, what doesn't "support your claims"?

Curiously, nothing with any testable criteria....

 

[Davian]

They don't to do science. They have to work within His universe though.

Fred's?

 

[Loudmouth]

What evidence do you have that God would do something other than create a universe that is comprehensible, consistent and uniform so that the intelligent beings He created could acquire knowledge?

What evidence do you have that God did?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, unless you can prove that another universe exists or trillions for that matter, you are going to have to settle your arguments on this universe. Anything other than ours is immaterial and irrelevant until which time there is evidence for it or them.

Unless you can prove that our universe is the only one that exists, your claims of improbability are meaningless.

There is no evidence of what a universe would have for any requirements mine or anything else.

Then say goodbye to your fine tuning argument.

Let me do this one more time. My claim is that there is evidence to support the universe was created/designed.

The universe appears to be designed.

That is a belief, not evidence.

I am asking you for EVIDENCE that the universe is designed. Your claim is that you believe it looks like it is designed. That is not evidence. That is a belief.

Scientists that have the expertise and experience determined the universe appears to be designed.

That is a belief.

The creation narrative claims that the Christian God created and designed the universe.

Did you read what you just wrote? "The creation narrative claims . . .". That is a claim. That is not evidence.

Do you seriously not understand the difference between a claim and evidence? This is something that I learned in 3rd grade.

Could you imagine a prosecuting attorney who, when asked for evidence, said, "My evidence is that I claim that John Smith committed the murder." Would you, at all, at any time in history, take that as evidence? If you would, my jaw is on the ground.

If the universe was created and designed by the Christian God it would reflect that in its appearance.

The universe reflects design in its appearance thus we can conclude that the universe was created and designed by the Christian God.

What evidence demonstrates that the universe reflects the design of a deity? Again, you just repeat your beliefs and pretend it is evidence.

The nature of the universe is based on laws that govern it.

Those laws include at least 26 laws that are constant and can be measured accurately.

The laws of Physics require fine tuning in such a way to produce the ability to for life.

There are no known laws of physics that can explain the fine tuning of the universe.

That is an argument from ignorance. That is a logical fallacy.

If the Christian God designed the universe it would be designed in such a way to assure life and reflect His intelligence.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Another logical fallacy. Would you be convinced if I said that if Leprechauns existed we would see rainbows, and since we see rainbows that Leprechauns must exist? If not, imagine how unimpressed I am with your argument.

The universe is comprehensible and mathematical in nature.

Intelligence is comprehensible and mathematical. Intelligence comes from intelligence.

Another claim with zero evidence. Where did you ever show that inteligence can not arise in the absence of intelligence?

Intelligence and comprehension are reflected in the universe and human beings.

The overall sum of factors in the universe support the creation of the universe by the Christian God.

Another claim with zero evidence.

The odds are so low scientist now are considering that the universe is not due to a natural process, and either must be explained by multiverse theory or some unknown law of everything that pulls it back into the natural.

Show me the math.

It supports my claim that the universe is not a product of natural processes but is instead the creation of the Christian God.

All you have is the claim, and no evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Unless you can prove that our universe is the only one that exists, your claims of improbability are meaningless.

I can prove this universe is the only universe that exists empirically. You must prove your claim that there are others. Without proof of other universes your claim is meaningless.

Then say goodbye to your fine tuning argument.

The argument is the same whether you have one or trillions of universes. What would cause our universe to be the way it is in trillions of other ones. It doesn't eliminate the fine tuning of this one.

That is a belief, not evidence.

So you feel that scientists are stating that the universe appears to be designed on belief rather than any scientific basis?

I am asking you for EVIDENCE that the universe is designed. Your claim is that you believe it looks like it is designed. That is not evidence. That is a belief.

This is a line of reasoning that provides coherent and logical basis for a conclusion. If there were a definition that encompassed the meaning of design we could perhaps use it. However, there is no real definition that does so. How would you define design in the terms of human design?

That is a belief.
Did you read what you just wrote? "The creation narrative claims . . .". That is a claim. That is not evidence.
Do you seriously not understand the difference between a claim and evidence? This is something that I learned in 3rd grade.

Loudmouth do you understand the form of an argument? We take statements that are based on known facts:


The universe appears to be designed. [premise]

Scientists that have the expertise and experience determined the universe appears to be designed. [premise]

The creation narrative claims that the Christian God created and designed the universe. [premise]

If the universe was created and designed by the Christian God it would reflect that in its appearance. [premise]

The universe reflects design in its appearance thus we can conclude that the universe was created and designed by the Christian God. [conclusion]

Could you imagine a prosecuting attorney who, when asked for evidence, said, "My evidence is that I claim that John Smith committed the murder." Would you, at all, at any time in history, take that as evidence? If you would, my jaw is on the ground.

You can now see this is not what was presented.

What evidence demonstrates that the universe reflects the design of a deity? Again, you just repeat your beliefs and pretend it is evidence.

See above.

That is an argument from ignorance. That is a logical fallacy.

The nature of the universe is based on laws that govern it.

Those laws include at least 26 laws that are constant and can be measured accurately.

The laws of Physics require fine tuning in such a way to produce the ability to for life.

There are no known laws of physics that can explain the fine tuning of the universe.

If the Christian God designed the universe it would be designed in such a way to assure life and reflect His intelligence.

The universe is comprehensible and mathematical in nature.

Intelligence is comprehensible and mathematical. Intelligence comes from intelligence.

Intelligence and comprehension are reflected in the universe and human beings.

The overall sum of factors in the universe support the creation of the universe by the Christian God.

This is an argument for support of my conclusion and has not been based on the fact that your position has a lack of knowledge. False accusation.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Another logical fallacy. Would you be convinced if I said that if Leprechauns existed we would see rainbows, and since we see rainbows that Leprechauns must exist? If not, imagine how unimpressed I am with your argument.

IF Leprechauns had a claim that the king of the Leprechauns designed the universe and that the king made certain claims and those claims are in existence we would have to assume that the facts support that claim. It would be unreasonable to say that it wouldn't. The issue here and which you continue to ignore is that you may consider God the same as leprechauns and such ignore anything that would support His existence, but if the evidence supports a claim then the claim is possibly true. You may think it isn't true and that is your right to do so, but you are not basing it on the evidence or lack thereof. You are making a judgement call based on your own presuppositions. You don't believe in God, you don't believe in leprechauns so you won't accept evidence to support it.

Another claim with zero evidence. Where did you ever show that inteligence can not arise in the absence of intelligence?

Give me evidence that intelligence ever arose from non-intelligence.

Show me the math.

Ask them for it. I gave you the link.

 

[Loudmouth]

I can prove this universe is the only universe that exists empirically.

Then please, show me how that is done.

You must prove your claim that there are others.

It is your probability calculations that rely on knowing the number of universes, so it is up to you to show us how many universes there are.

The argument is the same whether you have one or trillions of universes. What would cause our universe to be the way it is in trillions of other ones. It doesn't eliminate the fine tuning of this one.

The lottery shows why this is wrong. If the lottery only sold one ticket then it is highly improbable that the single ticket would be a winner. However, if they sold trillions of tickets it is highly improbable that there wouldn't be a winner.

The same for your probabilities. If the probability of a universe like ours emerging is less than the number of universes then our universe coming about by chance is probable, not improbable. This is why we need to know the absolute number of universes in order for your claims of improbability to hold weight.

So you feel that scientists are stating that the universe appears to be designed on belief rather than any scientific basis?

What empirical evidence do they present, and what are they testable hypotheses that they are putting forward?

This is a line of reasoning that provides coherent and logical basis for a conclusion. If there were a definition that encompassed the meaning of design we could perhaps use it. However, there is no real definition that does so. How would you define design in the terms of human design?

You are the one claiming that the universe is designed. What definition are you using?

Loudmouth do you understand the form of an argument? We take statements that are based on known facts:




The universe appears to be designed. [premise]

That is a conclusion, not a premise. You get it wrong from the start.

Scientists that have the expertise and experience determined the universe appears to be designed. [premise]

Not a premise. That is a belief.

The creation narrative claims that the Christian God created and designed the universe. [premise]

Writing a story down does not make it true. That premise is out.

If the universe was created and designed by the Christian God it would reflect that in its appearance. [premise]

That is a conclusion, not a premise.

The universe reflects design in its appearance thus we can conclude that the universe was created and designed by the Christian God. [conclusion]

You lack any premises leading to this conclusion.

This is an argument for support of my conclusion and has not been based on the fact that your position has a lack of knowledge. False accusation.

You simply insert your conclusion into the premises. That is not now a logical argument is constructed. That is called "begging the question".

IF Leprechauns had a claim that the king of the Leprechauns designed the universe and that the king made certain claims and those claims are in existence we would have to assume that the facts support that claim.

The Leprechauns already told me. They inspired me to write their claims. They claim that they create rainbows that have a spectrum of colors from red to violet. Since we observe that rainbows appear to be designed by Leprechauns, and it matches what they inspired me to write, then Leprechauns must create rainbows. This argument is as well supported as yours.

The issue here and which you continue to ignore is that you may consider God the same as leprechauns and such ignore anything that would support His existence, but if the evidence supports a claim then the claim is possibly true.

You don't have evidence, as discussed above.

You are making a judgement call based on your own presuppositions.

You are the one using the presupposition that the Universe looks designed, and that the claims in the Bible are true.

Give me evidence that intelligence ever arose from non-intelligence.

Go find a mirror.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then please, show me how that is done.

More customarily, the Universe is defined as everything that exists, (has existed, and will exist)[citation needed]. According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of three principles: spacetime, forms of energy, including momentum and matter, and the physical laws that relate them.

These are empirically tested and confirmed. The universe is all of existence. For you to prove that other universes exist you must provide empirical evidence for them.

It is your probability calculations that rely on knowing the number of universes, so it is up to you to show us how many universes there are.

To begin with, it is not my probability calculations. It is not based on anything but the known universe and the know requirements for life. Perhaps you should research what the constants and probability of life is based on. You seem to be mistaken as to what they entail. WE KNOW that in this universe to have life there are requirements and those requirements are based on the material of this universe. Your misunderstanding in the link to other universes has created the problem. We don't need other universes to know what ours has and needs for life.

The lottery shows why this is wrong. If the lottery only sold one ticket then it is highly improbable that the single ticket would be a winner. However, if they sold trillions of tickets it is highly improbable that there wouldn't be a winner.

Irrelevant.

The same for your probabilities. If the probability of a universe like ours emerging is less than the number of universes then our universe coming about by chance is probable, not improbable. This is why we need to know the absolute number of universes in order for your claims of improbability to hold weight.

You are mixing two elements in one probability. There is the probability of the universe having the constants of this universe by natural means and there is the probability of life arising in this universe if the constants were any different. That might be the entire problem of you misunderstanding what is being discussed. You are uniting the two.

The probability of life is what we were discussing of Lee Smolin's probability calculations. The probability of the universe being by natural means is another all together.

What empirical evidence do they present, and what are they testable hypotheses that they are putting forward?

They are using known laws of physics and the precise measurements required for life.

You are the one claiming that the universe is designed. What definition are you using?

You are the one demanding that I give criteria for my claim and without knowing your definition of design by intelligent design it is pretty difficult to present something within your frame work.

That is a conclusion, not a premise. You get it wrong from the start.

I don't think you understand the concept.

Not a premise. That is a belief.

Yes, I doubt very much that you understand the concept.

Writing a story down does not make it true. That premise is out.

You may have learned what a claim is in 3rd grade but you haven't learned about what makes premises what they are and how that brings us to a conclusion.

That is a conclusion, not a premise.

Your lack of knowledge doesn't make my conclusion a problem.

You lack any premises leading to this conclusion.

In your opinion which is based on your lack of understanding of what a premise is and how that applies to the conclusion.

You simply insert your conclusion into the premises. That is not now a logical argument is constructed. That is called "begging the question".

Right. AS I said.

The Leprechauns already told me. They inspired me to write their claims. They claim that they create rainbows that have a spectrum of colors from red to violet. Since we observe that rainbows appear to be designed by Leprechauns, and it matches what they inspired me to write, then Leprechauns must create rainbows. This argument is as well supported as yours.

Ok.

You don't have evidence, as discussed above

You don't have a grasp on argumentation.

You are the one using the presupposition that the Universe looks designed, and that the claims in the Bible are true.

sheesh.

Go find a mirror.

My parents were intelligent and so were theirs. However, that supports my position not yours.

 

[Loudmouth]

More customarily, the Universe is defined as everything that exists, (has existed, and will exist)[citation needed]. According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of three principles: spacetime, forms of energy, including momentum and matter, and the physical laws that relate them.

Still waiting for your empirical evidence that our universe is the only universe in existence.

To begin with, it is not my probability calculations. It is not based on anything but the known universe and the know requirements for life.

Again, you are saying "Look, the dice are 7" as your probability calculation. You are not describing a probability. You are describing an outcome, but not telling us how you calculated the probability of that outcome.

Irrelevant.

Explain why it is irrelevant.

There is the probability of the universe having the constants of this universe by natural means and there is the probability of life arising in this universe if the constants were any different. That might be the entire problem of you misunderstanding what is being discussed. You are uniting the two.

No, that is the problem you are having. For example, I fully admit that the odds of a single person winning the lottery is very improbable. However, I am saying that if enough people bought tickets then somebody winning is very probable.

The winner in the analogy is a universe capable of producing life. You are only counting a single winner of the jackpot and claiming that the lottery had to be fine tuned because a specific person won.

You are the one demanding that I give criteria for my claim and without knowing your definition of design by intelligent design it is pretty difficult to present something within your frame work.

I am asking what your definition of design is since you are the one claiming that something is designed. What is so hard about that?

[qutoe]I don't think you understand the concept.[/quote]

I understand it just fine. You are inserting your conclusion in the first premise which is a logical fallacy.

"Begging the question (Latin: petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion; in other words, basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself."
Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may have learned what a claim is in 3rd grade but you haven't learned about what makes premises what they are and how that brings us to a conclusion.

Then please show that the universe looks designed.

Your lack of knowledge doesn't make my conclusion a problem.

Your lack of evidence does. Your evidence for design is your assumption that the universe looks designed. That's a very tight circular argument you have going there.

 

[Davian]

.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Still waiting for your empirical evidence that our universe is the only universe in existence.

The burden of proof is on you. You are the one claiming that there other universes.

Again, you are saying "Look, the dice are 7" as your probability calculation. You are not describing a probability. You are describing an outcome, but not telling us how you calculated the probability of that outcome.

We know our universe is a closed system. Within that system we can approximate the number of stars and we know the make up of those stars. We know the requirements of the materials that makes life possible. We can then take these parameters and calculate the probability of life in our universe. That is the way Smolin calculated the probability. Smolin is a multiverse theorist who believes that this is the cause of the fine tuning and the minuteness of precision of our constants. You are simplifying the probability and physicists disagree.

Explain why it is irrelevant.

Well as usual you over simplify everything. It is not as simple as the lottery. The lottery doesn't govern the systematic requirements of a universe for one. The lottery has no complexity at issue. It is a contained system which has no complex settings or mechanisms that require precise measurements which existence is dependent upon. It is a set of numbers that randomly are presented which hold no bearing on the outcome of the entire system other than eliminating other numbers.

No, that is the problem you are having. For example, I fully admit that the odds of a single person winning the lottery is very improbable. However, I am saying that if enough people bought tickets then somebody winning is very probable.

Irrelevant. There is no complexity in the random game of chance and nothing dependent upon it to show that the probability would matter. If there were multiverses you would still have to show how the multiverse generator had the complexity and fine tuning to create ours. You just push back the fine tuning farther.

I am asking what your definition of design is since you are the one claiming that something is designed. What is so hard about that?

Design — purposefully directed contingency. That is, the intelligent, creative manipulation of possible outcomes (and usually of objects, forces, materials, processes and trends) towards goals. (E.g. 1: writing a meaningful sentence or a functional computer program. E.g. 2: loading of a die to produce biased, often advantageous, outcomes. E.g. 3: the creation of a complex object such as a statue, or a stone arrow-head, or a computer, or a pocket knife.).

[qutoe]I don't think you understand the concept.[/quote]

I understand it just fine. You are inserting your conclusion in the first premise which is a logical fallacy.

No I am presenting that the universe appears to be designed. This is based on scientific pronouncements. So it is a widely accepted statement.

Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[9]

Martin Rees[12] formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless constants:

• N = ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism;
• Epsilon (ε) = strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;
• Omega (ω) = relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe;
• Lambda (λ) = cosmological constant;
• Q = ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;
• D = number of spatial dimensions in spacetime.

"Begging the question (Latin: petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion; in other words, basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself."
Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This would only be true if there were no scientists claiming the universe appears to be designed. However, there are and so this is a false accusation.

Then please show that the universe looks designed.

In a designed system we see that all of the parts interrelate to the whole which has a set goal and the requirements needed for that goal.
We have processes actively proceeding from an identified set of requirements for a system to a design which meets those requirements within precise measurement. The main components of such system each have distinct roles and interrelationships, have certain detailed structure and operation which concerns the individual components to the whole. The "design" of the universe is exemplified by the interconnected processes that meet the requirements of the universe and its support to life. This is how the universe is designed.

Your lack of evidence does. Your evidence for design is your assumption that the universe looks designed. That's a very tight circular argument you have going there.

If the universe does indeed have a set of requirements and the design of the universe meets those requirements then one can assume design was used to meet those requirements.

You have at this time not provided evidence of other universes. You have not provided evidence of intelligence arising from non-intelligence.

 

[Loudmouth]

The burden of proof is on you. You are the one claiming that there other universes.

You are the one claiming that this is the only universe in existence. The burden of proof is on you. I am making no statement as to the absolute number of universes. You are.

We know our universe is a closed system.

Since when?

Within that system we can approximate the number of stars and we know the make up of those stars. We know the requirements of the materials that makes life possible. We can then take these parameters and calculate the probability of life in our universe. That is the way Smolin calculated the probability. Smolin is a multiverse theorist who believes that this is the cause of the fine tuning and the minuteness of precision of our constants. You are simplifying the probability and physicists disagree.

Which are you calculating? The probability of life emerging in our universe, or the probability of a universe emerging with specific constants?

Well as usual you over simplify everything. It is not as simple as the lottery. The lottery doesn't govern the systematic requirements of a universe for one.

The lottery does give govern the systematic requirements for a specific person winning. The odds of any specific person winning is astronomical, and yet people win the lottery all of the time.

The lottery has no complexity at issue.

It absolutely is complex. No supercomputer would be able to measure all of the intricate interaction of the ping pong balls that gives rise to the results of the lottery.

It is a set of numbers that randomly are presented which hold no bearing on the outcome of the entire system other than eliminating other numbers.

And yet it is still able to produce astronomically improbable results.

Design — purposefully directed contingency. That is, the intelligent, creative manipulation of possible outcomes (and usually of objects, forces, materials, processes and trends) towards goals.

Then present evidence that our universe was designed with humans as the goal.

No I am presenting that the universe appears to be designed. This is based on scientific pronouncements. So it is a widely accepted statement.

What evidence demonstrates that the constants in our universe were designed?

Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[9]

Martin Rees[12] formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless constants:

• N = ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism;
• Epsilon (ε) = strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;
• Omega (ω) = relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe;
• Lambda (λ) = cosmological constant;
• Q = ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;
• D = number of spatial dimensions in spacetime.

Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."
That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
--Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, "Why God Did Not Create the Universe"
Stephen Hawking on God, Science and the Origins of the Universe - WSJ.com

​

See, I can quote Hawking, too.

In a designed system we see that all of the parts interrelate to the whole which has a set goal and the requirements needed for that goal.

We also see that in systems that aren't designed. We see that the complex weather and geology of Earth interact to produce what we see on the Earth, and it all does so without any intelligent interaction.

If the universe does indeed have a set of requirements and the design of the universe meets those requirements then one can assume design was used to meet those requirements.

We can assume no such thing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are the one claiming that this is the only universe in existence. The burden of proof is on you. I am making no statement as to the absolute number of universes. You are.

Our universe is a proven element, it can be empirically tested and shown to exist by experience. I don't have to prove anything other than the universe which as defined all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. I am claiming that there is only one universe that can be empirically tested and shown to exist by experience.

Since when?

IF you can provide evidence to the contrary please provide it.

Which are you calculating? The probability of life emerging in our universe, or the probability of a universe emerging with specific constants?

Smolin's probability was for life emerging in this universe using the stars and the laws of physics and constants.

The lottery does give govern the systematic requirements for a specific person winning. The odds of any specific person winning is astronomical, and yet people win the lottery all of the time.

If you want to believe that we are just the lucky winners in the universal lottery then by all means don't let me stop you. However, if you wish to make a logical argument against design you might want to find something more substantial. Saying, "wow we sure are lucky" doesn't carry much weight.

It absolutely is complex. No supercomputer would be able to measure all of the intricate interaction of the ping pong balls that gives rise to the results of the lottery.

Ok, however this does make your argument self refuting when a supercomputer can't even measure all the intricate interaction of ping pong balls. Put that up against the universe and where does that take you?

And yet it is still able to produce astronomically improbable results.

Yeah, we sure are lucky.

Then present evidence that our universe was designed with humans as the goal.

WE exist.

What evidence demonstrates that the constants in our universe were designed?

I am open for any materialistic explanation that you can prove. Let's have it.

Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."
That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
--Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, "Why God Did Not Create the Universe"
Stephen Hawking on God, Science and the Origins of the Universe - WSJ.com

​

See, I can quote Hawking, too.

You can see this is not counter to what I presented right? This is just Stephen Hawking stating his opinions. One is based on currently known facts in regard to measurements that have been proven experimentally in all areas of science, the other is based on his presupposition that there is no God. Which one carries more weight with you?

We also see that in systems that aren't designed. We see that the complex weather and geology of Earth interact to produce what we see on the Earth, and it all does so without any intelligent interaction.

Do we? The Sun heats the Earth's atmosphere unevenly, creating very warm, high-pressure areas around the equator, and cool, low-pressure areas toward the poles. As the warm air moves to low-pressure areas, wind is created. Uninterrupted, wind patterns would run in straight lines from pole to pole. However, because of the earth's rotation, wind is forced right or left instead. This phenomenon is called the Coriolis Effect. So if not for the sun being in the position it is to warm the earth's atmosphere there would be no wind. If the earth did not rotate the wind would run in straight lines from pole to pole which would have no bearing on the geographical influences. This being said, you would have to show that design would not be involved in the position of the sun or the rotation of the earth. You would also have to believe that intelligent interaction is seen in some areas and not in the wind as you cited.

We can assume no such thing.

What prohibits that assumption?

 

[Loudmouth]

Our universe is a proven element, it can be empirically tested and shown to exist by experience. I don't have to prove anything other than the universe which as defined all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

You do have to prove that our universe is the only one for your probabilities to be meaningful, as discussed before.

I am claiming that there is only one universe that can be empirically tested and shown to exist by experience.

That doesn't tell us how many universes there may be. We have empirically tested for a few hundred planets, but do you think that there are only a few hundred planets in all of the universe, and that they just happen to be withing a few thousand light years of Earth?

IF you can provide evidence to the contrary please provide it.

The burden of proof is on you, not me. Please learn how the burden of proof works.

Smolin's probability was for life emerging in this universe using the stars and the laws of physics and constants.

That probability is 1 in 1.

If you want to believe that we are just the lucky winners in the universal lottery then by all means don't let me stop you. However, if you wish to make a logical argument against design you might want to find something more substantial. Saying, "wow we sure are lucky" doesn't carry much weight.

So you are saying that the lottery has to be designed so that specific people win?

WE exist.

Sharpshooter fallacy.

I am open for any materialistic explanation that you can prove. Let's have it.

You are once again shifting the burden of proof. Please present your evidence that the universe was designed.

You can see this is not counter to what I presented right? This is just Stephen Hawking stating his opinions.

What you presented was Hawking's opinion.

One is based on currently known facts in regard to measurements that have been proven experimentally in all areas of science, the other is based on his presupposition that there is no God.

Your entire argument is based on the presupposition that God designed the universe. Everytime I ask for evidence you just restate your assumptions.

Do we? The Sun heats the Earth's atmosphere unevenly, creating very warm, high-pressure areas around the equator, and cool, low-pressure areas toward the poles. As the warm air moves to low-pressure areas, wind is created. Uninterrupted, wind patterns would run in straight lines from pole to pole. However, because of the earth's rotation, wind is forced right or left instead. This phenomenon is called the Coriolis Effect. So if not for the sun being in the position it is to warm the earth's atmosphere there would be no wind. If the earth did not rotate the wind would run in straight lines from pole to pole which would have no bearing on the geographical influences. This being said, you would have to show that design would not be involved in the position of the sun or the revolution of the earth. You would also have to believe that intelligent interaction is seen in some areas and not in the wind as you cited.

Given the trillions of planets in the universe, the odds of a planet like ours seems assured.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You do have to prove that our universe is the only one for your probabilities to be meaningful, as discussed before.

How would the number of universes be needed to determine the probability of this universe producing life based on the requirements of life and the materials required to produce it? Explain why this is needed for the probability of life on earth?

That doesn't tell us how many universes there may be. We have empirically tested for a few hundred planets, but do you think that there are only a few hundred planets in all of the universe, and that they just happen to be withing a few thousand light years of Earth?

The universe is all that there is. We can go and see the moments prior to its "big bang". Everything there is including those planets that we can't observe from our vantage point in the universe can be tested for and empirically explained. That is not true of any other universe. This universe for all experimentally empirical purposes is all there is. It is up to you then to provide the evidence for other universes. You are making the claim outside the norm of scientific empirical evidence so you must provide the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is on you, not me. Please learn how the burden of proof works.

Burden of proof" is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it. In a scientific context evidence is experimental or empirical data (although in some branches, well thought out mathematics may suffice). Once some evidence has been presented, it is up to the opposing "side" to disprove the evidence presented or explain why it may not be adequate.

You seem to be under the impression that you are immune to having to back up your claims. That is not the case. IF you claim that my evidence for one universe is faulty then it is upon you to show evidence that I am wrong. You can't just proclaim it to be wrong and expect me to supply more evidence and more evidence to show the same point.

That probability is 1 in 1.

Only using the constants as they stand. You are not using variable to provide for outcome.

So you are saying that the lottery has to be designed so that specific people win?

I am saying it is irrelevant.

Sharpshooter fallacy.

Perhaps but it is still empirically true.

You are once again shifting the burden of proof. Please present your evidence that the universe was designed.

My claim was that they appear to be designed. I provided evidence that supported that claim, so the burden shifts to you to provide evidence that counters mine. That is how it works.

What you presented was Hawking's opinion.

Which was my claim.

Your entire argument is based on the presupposition that God designed the universe. Everytime I ask for evidence you just restate your assumptions.

My claim is that evidence supports God designed the universe. Appearance of design would in fact support that claim.

Given the trillions of planets in the universe, the odds of a planet like ours seems assured.

This has nothing to do with what I wrote.

 

[Loudmouth]

How would the number of universes be needed to determine the probability of this universe producing life based on the requirements of life and the materials required to produce it?

The same way that you need to know the number of lottery tickets sold in order to calculate the probability of someone winning the lottery.

The universe is all that there is.

Evidence please.

Burden of proof"

is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it. In a scientific context evidence is experimental or empirical data (although in some branches, well thought out mathematics may suffice). Once some evidence has been presented, it is up to the opposing "side" to disprove the evidence presented or explain why it may not be adequate.

You seem to be under the impression that you are immune to having to back up your claims. That is not the case. IF you claim that my evidence for one universe is faulty then it is upon you to show evidence that I am wrong. You can't just proclaim it to be wrong and expect me to supply more evidence and more evidence to show the same point.

You are claiming that there are no other universes. I am asking you to support this claim with evidence.

Only using the constants as they stand. You are not using variable to provide for outcome.

Once something occurs the probability of it occuring are 1 in 1.

I am saying it is irrelevant.

I am saying it is not.

Does the lottery have to be designed so that specific people win?

My claim was that they appear to be designed. I provided evidence that supported that claim, so the burden shifts to you to provide evidence that counters mine. That is how it works.

You never presented evidence as to why the universe appears to be designed. You just assumed it.

My claim is that evidence supports God designed the universe. Appearance of design would in fact support that claim.

You are assuming your conclusion.